Next Article in Journal
DLSMR: Deep Learning-Based Secure Multicast Routing Protocol against Wormhole Attack in Flying Ad Hoc Networks with Cell-Free Massive Multiple-Input Multiple-Output
Next Article in Special Issue
A 316MP, 120FPS, High Dynamic Range CMOS Image Sensor for Next Generation Immersive Displays
Previous Article in Journal
CloudDenseNet: Lightweight Ground-Based Cloud Classification Method for Large-Scale Datasets Based on Reconstructed DenseNet
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Random Telegraph Noise Degradation Caused by Hot Carrier Injection in a 0.8 μm-Pitch 8.3Mpixel Stacked CMOS Image Sensor†

Sensors 2023, 23(18), 7959; https://doi.org/10.3390/s23187959
by Calvin Yi-Ping Chao *, Thomas Meng-Hsiu Wu, Shang-Fu Yeh, Chih-Lin Lee, Honyih Tu, Joey Chiao-Yi Huang and Chin-Hao Chang
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3:
Sensors 2023, 23(18), 7959; https://doi.org/10.3390/s23187959
Submission received: 2 August 2023 / Revised: 15 September 2023 / Accepted: 16 September 2023 / Published: 18 September 2023

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please see the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Figures are way too small, legends are not readable.  Needs improvement.
Some sentences are extremely long. Shorten the sentences please. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

In this paper, the authors evaluate pixel degradation caused by hot carrier injection in a stacked CMOS image sensor based on actual measurements. Accelerated tests by applying stresses stronger than the actual operating conditions show a clear trend. In addition, evaluations of individual pixel circuits in actual arrayed devices show that there are differences in the distribution of threshold shift and random noise increase. These are considered to be sufficient contributions to the field. The quality of the paper is considered high enough, but here are some comments from the reviewer.

 

1. Some definitions are not clearly stated, such as RSV, IS, and t in Fig. 4.

2. “he” in line 294 seems to be a typographical error.

3. Please describe how the fitting curve in Fig. 16(b) was obtained.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop